Posts tagged virginia
Whether one agrees or not with supporting / joining the upcoming scheduled open carry march on D.C. on July 4th one thing is almost guarantied. If history proves anything the mainstream media will black this out until they can either edit and spin the story to their owner’s advantage or a provocateur created action gives the MSM the green light, as the spin has already taken place.
Below are article snippets with links to the full resources for the information I have seen to date. Research on your own if you choose as I am sure more information and opinions are available than I have had time to mention here.
By Lori Stacey
In what can only be described as perhaps the ultimate test of the 2nd Amendment in our nation’s capitol, an open carry march with loaded rifles is being planned for Independence day.
The organizer for this event is Adam Kokesh, an outspoken advocate for gun rights and veteran of the Iraq War. He is well-known within the Patriot community for pushing the envelope in order to bring attention to our constitutional rights and defense of them. He hosted a television show on Russia Today called Adam vs. The Man and has continued to bring forth radio segments on the internet using the same show title since leaving RT.
Adam was one of the organizers of a gutsy march on the White House on Presidents’ Day back during the primaries in support of Ron Paul. It was a march that comprised exclusively several hundred veterans and active duty military members whose goal was to proclaim that “Ron Paul was the choice of our troops.” It was carried out peacefully and respectfully but received very little national mainstream press coverage in spite of the uniqueness of such an event.
In perhaps Adam’s most courageous planned event to date, a march is scheduled for the 4th of July. A facebook group has been set-up to organize and plan the event which will be a march with loaded rifles slung behind participant’s backs. The information regarding the march openly discloses to interested participants that it will be a non-permitted event into Washington, DC where open-carry is forbidden to be done according to current gun control laws.
As stated in part within the facebook group’s information:
Should we meet physical resistance, we will peacefully turn back, having shown that free people are not welcome in Washington, & returning with the resolve that the politicians, bureaucrats, & enforcers of the federal government will not be welcome in the land of the free.
This event will be truly a test of whether or not the American people are still “allowed” to “peaceably assemble” freely without the unconstitutional need to get permission from the government, i.e. by permit. That is one aspect of the march that should be noted.
The above video is Adam Kokesh’s first media appearance on the Alex Jones radio and TV show since he announced his armed march on D.C. Adam expanded on his publicly announced plan to lead an armed formation of 2nd Amendment Rights activists from Virginia’s Arlington National Cemetery to the White House and back. He told Alex Jones that this is an armed revolt and an overthrow of the illegitimate government but he agreed with Alex that what he means by that is it is a symbolic overthrow of their violation of the civil rights of American gun owners. This is a powerful interview, read the CNS news article below.
Alex Jones Interviewed Radio host and activist Adam Kokesh plans to lead an armed march from the Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia all the way to the White House and back.
According to a Facebook event posted by Kokesh, titled “ Open Carry March on Washington,” he plans to lead a peaceful march July 4th “across the Memorial Bridge, down Independence Avenue, around the Capitol, the Supreme Court, & the White House, then peacefully return to Virginia across the Memorial Bridge.”
As of 7:00am on 5/8/2013 there are 2,663 people who are intending to participate in this event.
But if Adam Kokesh follows through with his July 4 plans — 2,500 people have signed up for the cause — he and his makeshift band will be met on the Arlington Memorial Bridge by two police forces packing guns of their own.
Kokesh, 31, and D.C. Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier say they want to work together to ensure a peaceful airing of grievances. But the chief says only one side can have guns: hers. And she’ll have backup from the U.S. Park Police, which will also position officers at the District line.
“If you’re coming here to protest government policy, great,” Lanier said Tuesday on her monthly appearance on NewsChannel 8, reacting to the group’s plan to cross the Potomac River from Arlington National Cemetery. “If you’re coming here to break the law, we’ll take action.”
Lanier added, “There’s a pretty good chance we’ll meet them on the D.C. side of the bridge.”
Kokesh is calling the event an “ Open Carry March ” but described it as a general demonstration against “tyranny,” not a protest against specific gun laws.
News of the march comes amid a national debate over gun regulations that emerged after the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. Kokesh has chosen to stage his protest in one of the most strictly regulated cities when it comes to firearms laws — and one of the most contested.
By John Raines
There’s been a lot of confusion about Adam Kokesh’s armed protest march into Washington and multiple people have stated the group will simple turn around if they are met with resistance. I’d like to clear up some of the incorrect assumptions regarding political geography in the Washington D.C./Maryland/Virginia area.
First some history. During the colonial period, both Virginia and Maryland claimed ownership of the Potomac River. In 1776 Virginia ceded control and legal ownership of the portion of the river where the two states share a border in the Virginia Constitution.
Some time later in the 1790s Virginia and Maryland ceded land to the Federal government for the creation of Washington D.C. The portion of the Potomac that ran through the District was no longer part of Maryland but became part of D.C. In 1847, the Virginia portion was “retroceded” back to Virginia. However, the Maryland portion originally ceded to the Feds provided the legal ownership over the Potomac and remained in the possession of Washington D.C. This arrangement continues to this day.
What does this all mean? Conventional wisdom would assume that the border between two states is at the middle point of the river. However, with the Potomac this is not true. Since Washington D.C. has ownership of the Potomac River to the lowest point on the Virginia side, (through Maryland’s prior ownership) Adam and his formation will have a very short march before they find themselves in violation of D.C. law. So short in fact, they may mistakenly believe they are still in Virginia before even reaching the Memorial bridge as Columbia Island between the two locations is part of D.C. (Lady Bird Johnson Memorial park).
The Associated Press | Posted: Feb 27, 2013 4:49 PM ET | Last Updated: Feb 27, 2013 5:25 PM ET
The U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative justices voiced deep skepticism Wednesday about a section of a landmark civil rights law that has helped millions of Americans exercise their right to vote.
In an ominous note for supporters of the key provision of the Voting Rights Act, Justice Anthony Kennedy both acknowledged the measure’s vital role in fighting discrimination and suggested that other important laws in U.S. history had run their course. “Times change,” Kennedy said during the fast-paced, 70-minute argument.
Kennedy’s views are likely to prevail on the closely divided court, and he tends to side with his more conservative colleagues on matters of race.
The court’s liberals and conservatives engaged in a sometimes tense back-and-forth over whether there is still a need in 2013 for the part of the voting rights law that requires states with a history of discrimination against blacks, mainly in the Deep South, to get approval before making changes in the way elections are held.
Justice Antonin Scalia called the law a “perpetuation of racial entitlement.”
Chief Justice John Roberts, a vocal skeptic of the use of race in all areas of public life, cited a variety of statistics that showed starker racial disparities in some aspects of voting in the northeastern state of Massachusetts than in the southern state of Mississippi. Then he asked the government’s top Supreme Court lawyer whether the Obama administration thinks “the citizens in the South are more racist than citizens in the North?”
The answer from Solicitor General Donald Verrilli was no.
Location of law
The question, and others like it from the conservative justices, largely echoed the doubts they first expressed four years ago in a similar case that ended without resolving the constitutionality of the latest renewal of the voting rights law, in 2006. They questioned whether there remain appreciable differences between the locations covered by the law and those that are not.
They also wondered whether there was any end in sight for a provision that intrudes on states’ rights to conduct elections and which was regarded as an emergency response to decades of state-sponsored discrimination in voting, despite the U.S Constitution’s Fifteenth Amendment guarantee of the vote for black Americans.
The provision shifted the legal burden and required governments that were covered to demonstrate that their proposed changes would not discriminate. Another part of the voting rights law, not being challenged, allows for traditional, after-the-fact claims of discrimination in voting and applies across the country.
As his administration was defending the voting rights law, U.S. President Barack Obama was across the street at the Capitol unveiling a statue of civil rights pioneer Rosa Parks, who in 1955 famously refused to give up her seat on a city bus in Montgomery, Alabama, to a white man. The court will have to decide whether the conditions that gave rise to that seminal event are, like the statue, a part of history, or whether they persist in parts of the nation.
The court’s four liberal justices, including Obama appointees Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, appeared uniformly to be willing to defer to the decision by Congress that more progress needs to be made before freeing states from the special federal monitoring.
Those justices aggressively questioned Bert Rein, the lawyer representing Shelby County, Alabama, a southern state, in its challenge to the law.
Sotomayor acknowledged some parts of the South had changed, but she asserted that recent voting rights lawsuits in Alabama suggested that Shelby County, near Birmingham, has not made sufficient progress.
“Why would we vote in favour of a county whose record is the epitome of what caused the passage of this law to start with?” Sotomayor asked.
Kagan chimed in that any formula devised by Congress “would capture Alabama,” where she said certain discriminatory voting practices have persisted.
But Rein said the issue was whether the formula in place, using statistics that are at least 40 years old, remains a valid way to determine which locations have to ask for permission to make voting changes.
Protection of minorities
Debo Adegbile, a lawyer for the NAACP Legal Defence and Educational Fund, argued to the court on behalf of local Alabama elected officials and civil rights leaders. He sought to show the justices that there is a current need for the law, an effort to counter the court’s admonition four years ago that current conditions, not history alone, must justify the continuing application of the law. The NAACP is a leading civil rights organization.
In 2011, Adegbile said, a judge in Alabama cited state lawmakers’ derogatory references to African-Americans as a reason to continue to protect minority voters through the Voting Rights Act.
But Roberts challenged the lawyer. “Have there been episodes, egregious episodes of the kind you are talking about in states that are not covered?” the chief justice asked.
Absolutely, Adegbile replied.
“Well, then it doesn’t seem to help you make the point that the differential between covered and noncovered continues to be justified,” Roberts said.
The requirement currently applies to the states of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia. It also covers certain counties in California, Florida, New York, North Carolina and South Dakota, and some local jurisdictions in Michigan and New Hampshire. Coverage has been triggered by past discrimination not only against blacks, but also against American Indians, Asian-Americans, Alaska Natives and Hispanics.
Among the covered states, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, South Carolina, South Dakota and Texas are siding with Shelby County, while California, Mississippi, New York and North Carolina argue that the law should be upheld.
Nearly 250 of the 12,000 state, county and local governments covered by the law have used an escape hatch to get out from under the special oversight by demonstrating that they and smaller places within their borders no longer discriminate in voting. The 10 covered towns in New Hampshire are poised to exit as they await federal court approval for an agreement between the state and the Justice Department.
A decision is expected by late June.
The US Department of Defense has hired a California company to tailor-make a mobile platform capable of detecting an individual person’s fingerprints, eyes, face and voice from a distance.
AOptix, a technology innovation company based in Campbell, California, announced the $3 million research contract to develop a biometric scan system for the Pentagon. The firm will work together with CACI International Inc., an information technology company, to deliver the new detection system.
The company was chosen by the DoD as it offered a “unique integration of biometrics, including iris, fingerprint, face and voice recognition, with smartphone technology,” a company press release reads.
AOptix promises to incorporate its breakthrough technology in providing the Pentagon with a tailored platform with “exceptional ease of use coupled with unparalleled identity verification accuracy for in-field use, even under challenging conditions.”
“Users of these systems in-field will benefit from a more compact, lightweight, versatile and accurate identity verification device than has previously been available,” Dean Senner, Chairman and CEO of AOptix said in a statement.
The hardware that the DoD will be offered is peripheral, and is an add-on to a phone which gives the mobile device the necessary sensing capabilities to acquire the biometric data. AOptix will also provide a software package to decipher the data.
Currently, Washington uses a device known as the Handheld Interagency Identity Detection System (HIIDE) to scan, upload and transmit someone’s biometric information. AOptix boast better specification, as its product can scan faces two meters away, irises from one meter, and voices from within the typical distance from a phone. Thumbprints will require a special glass surface.
CACI is being brought in as an expert of DoD technology and deployment criteria. The firm, based out of Arlington, Virginia, has experience in managing data in secure environments, most importantly in mobile device management, secure wireless transport and advanced encryption
It is speculated that the new application will be made for the Android operating system, Wired Magazine reports. The Pentagon is expecting delivery in two years.
By Madison Ruppert
Editor of End the Lie
The new Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) drone authorization list obtained by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit reveals more than 20 additional public entities allowed to fly drones over the United States.
This news comes as Charlottesville, Virginia passes a resolution banning drones, the entire state of Virginia might pass a drone moratorium, a Justice Department white paper was leaked outlining the supposed legal justification for the drone assassination program, the Obama administration is reportedly going to release legal memos to intelligence committees and the location of a CIA drone base in Saudi Arabia was revealed after two large media outlets withheld it at the government’s request.
This brings the total to 81 public entities authorized by the FAA to fly drones as of October 2012, according to the list obtained by the EFF. Keep in mind, documents obtained by the EFF reveal that drones are already flying over the United States.
Furthermore, we now know the military is operating drones domestically and sharing data with law enforcement, at least one National Guard unit uses drones, the Department of Homeland Security has embraced small spy drones and colleges and universities are offering more drone piloting programs to keep up with this drone boom.
End the Lie contacted the EFF’s media liaison by phone, confirming that this list is not merely applicants but indeed entities that have been authorized to fly drones over America.
Some of the newly approved agencies include the State Department, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and several sheriff’s departments including Canyon County Sheriff’s Office (Idaho), Clackamas County Sheriff’s Office (Northwest Oregon), Grand Forks Sheriff’s Department (North Dakota) and King County Sheriff’s Office (covering Seattle, Washington).
Another interesting new addition highlighted by the EFF is the Barona Band of Mission Indians Risk Management Office (near San Diego, California).
Interestingly, Ohio had several new entities approved, including the Medina County Sheriff’s Office, Ohio Department of Transportation, Sinclair Community College and Lorain County Community College.
The concerns raised by this new list are legion. One of the most significant concerns is the privacy and civil liberties implications of domestic drone use, especially given the advances in drone technology.
Among the most worrisome advances are: the capability of potentially constant surveillance thanks to solar power and laser-based charging methods, drone-based facial recognition technology, automated tracking systems, a drone-based camera capable of capturing 36 square miles of imagery at once, ultra-stealthy drones and even fully automated weapons systems.
The EFF also points out, “Even the smallest drones can carry a host of surveillance equipment, from video cameras and thermal imaging to GPS tracking and cellphone eavesdropping tools. They can also be equipped with advanced forms of radar detection, license plate cameras, and facial recognition.”
The EFF hopes that the release of the new list will “spur more people to ask their local law enforcement agencies about their drone programs.”
Thanks to a partnership with MuckRock, it’s even easier to request this information from your local agencies.
The EFF is encouraging people to “ask hard questions of government officials about who is funding drone development in their communities and what policies the government will demand agencies follow if they fly drones.”
“We need greater transparency and citizen push-back to protect Americans from privacy-invasive domestic drone use,” the EFF concludes.
About Madison Ruppert
Madison Ruppert is a Los Angeles-based independent journalist and researcher as well as the founder, owner, administrator and editor of EndtheLie.com. He has no affiliations with any government agencies, political parties, non-governmental organizations, or economic schools. He is available for freelance writing assignments and appearances or interviews in any format. He can be reached by emailing Admin@EndtheLie.com
By Steve Watson
Activists warn public is being categorized as “low-grade enemy”
Legislation to stave off the use of drones by law enforcement and government agencies in Virginia has advanced in the State Senate, as well as the House, bringing closer a two-year moratorium on the unmanned craft.
A House panel approved sending their version of the bill, HB2012 sponsored by Del. Benjamin L. Cline, to the floor by a 9-4 vote, while the Senate Courts of Justice, also endorsed the legislation Monday.
While the House bill advocates a blanket ban on the use of drones, the Senate version has an exception where missing person searches are concerned.
Delegate Todd Gilbert, who sponsored a similar drone bill last year said that strict limitations should be imposed upon the use of drones, including requiring search warrants for surveillance or collecting evidence for criminal investigations.
Claire Guthrie Gastañaga, executive director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia noted that “All of us are about to sacrifice our privacy to this new technology.”
“The Fourth Amendment should be the floor to protect our privacy, not the ceiling.” Gastañaga added.
At the House hearing, law enforcement groups argued that warrants may not be able to be obtained in time to use the technology effectively. Russell County Sheriff’s Office said it had already purchased two drones, and argued against the introduction of stipulations.
Last year, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell described warrantless drones as “great”, citing “battlefield successes”.
“If you’re keeping police officers safe, making it more productive and saving money… it’s absolutely the right thing to do.” McDonnell said on the deployment of drones in the State.
Residents seem to disagree, particularly in Charlottesville, where the City Council is considering making the city a no-drone zone.
Over the weekend, anti-drone activists led by resident David Swanson, held a rally, complete with a giant model of a drone, to educate more people on the matter and pressure the Council to act.
“They can put drones outside our windows, drones can listen in on our phone calls, drones can spy on us in ways that will be far too tempting to any police department and they’re already openly saying that’s what they need it for,” Swanson said.
“We have police departments across the country picking up the use of drones with tear gas, with rubber bullets to control crowds,” he added. “We don’t think we need to be controlled, we think such police departments need to be controlled.”
Swanson added that the way the military uses drones overseas is a core reason to prohibit their use domestically.
“A government that would target and kill an American abroad would target and kill an American at home,” Swanson said, adding that “There’s this trend toward looking at the public as sort of a low-grade enemy.”
The anti-drone resolution will be debated at a City Council meeting tonight at 7p.m.
A new Congressional Research Service report published last week warned that drones could be used for stalking, voyeurism, and laws need to be amended to protect the rights of citizens.
Steve Watson is the London based writer and editor for Alex Jones’ Infowars.com, and Prisonplanet.com. He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham, and a Bachelor Of Arts Degree in Literature and Creative Writing from Nottingham Trent University.
By Mark Bowes
Gun-related violent crime in Virginia has dropped steadily over the past six years as the sale of firearms has soared to a new record, according to an analysis of state crime data with state records of gun sales.
The total number of firearms purchased in Virginia increased 73 percent from 2006 to 2011. When state population increases are factored in, gun purchases per 100,000 Virginians rose 63 percent.
But the total number of gun-related violent crimes fell 24 percent over that period, and when adjusted for population, gun-related offenses dropped more than 27 percent, from 79 crimes per 100,000 in 2006 to 57 crimes in 2011.
The numbers appear to contradict a long-running popular narrative that more guns cause more violent crime, said Virginia Commonwealth University professor Thomas R. Baker, who compared Virginia crime data for those years with gun-dealer sales estimates obtained by the Richmond Times-Dispatch.
“While there is a wealth of academic literature attempting to demonstrate the relationship between guns and crime, a very simple and intuitive demonstration of the numbers seems to point away from the premise that more guns leads to more crime, at least in Virginia,” said Baker, who specializes in research methods and criminology theory and has an interest in gun issues.
The significance of Baker’s analysis was questioned by one of the state’s ardent gun-control advocates.
“I’m not surprised that it would appear that more guns is going along with less crime, because there’s been a downward trend in violent crime anyway,” said Andrew Goddard, president of the Virginia Center for Public Safety.
One of Virginia’s most outspoken gun-rights supporters, Philip Van Cleave, president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, was not surprised for a different reason.
“My opponents are constantly saying, ‘If you got more guns on the street, there’s going to be more crime.’ It all depends on who has the handgun,” Van Cleave said. “As long as it’s going into the hands of people like you or me, there’s not going to be a problem. Criminals are going to continue to get their guns no matter what.”
By Lori Stacey, DC Conservative Examiner
With several strong alternative candidates available to vote for either on the ballot or as official write-in candidates, will the American people send a strong message to both the major parties by voting for anyone but Obama & Romney? It is hard to say what voters will ultimately do but what is apparent is that there has never been such a strong degree of discontent with the major party choices of candidates than in this presidential election of 2012.
Will Ron Paul finally get his legitimate win in the state of Maine where he has officially been set-up as a write-in candidate? We know the primary results were wrought with obvious fraud and then most of his duly elected delegates were not allowed to be seated at the national convention. Will the people of Maine finally be allowed to be heard in casting their real choice for President on the election night that counts the most?
Ron Paul’s supporters have surprisingly set him up as an official write-in candidate in at least a dozen or more states. The latest state is in California where he will be available for a write-in vote with Judge Napolitano as his Vice Presidential running mate. Don’t expect these write-in votes to be counted, tallied and published until weeks after election night.
Virgil Goode is going to be another one to watch, particularly in the states of Virginia, Colorado, Nevada and possibly in Ohio. He is still wildly popular in southern Virginia where he served as a member of congress for 6 two-year terms and is running his campaign very hard in this state. In Colorado, the Constitution Party broke through in 2010 and now has Major Party status in the state, thanks to the incredible run by Tom Tancredo for Governor in that election year. Expect voters to take Virgil Goode’s candidacy very seriously in Colorado.
Gary Johnson has become a very popular choice among the segment of Ron Paul’s support that leaned more heavily on libertarianism rather than conservatism. Expect him to be a strong force to deal with in several states.
Published on Sep 2, 2012 by messengersforliberty
While we were in Tampa, Florida on August 26, 2012 we ran across several Ron Paul delegates who offered to share their experience with the GOP corruption that has been ongoing this year.
By Lori Stacey
The real sequence of events leading up to the Rand Paul announcement
Make no mistake about it, the pundits claiming that Rand Paul’s endorsement of Mitt Romney would be good for his political future in the long-run are absolutely wrong. In my opinion, Rand Paul just committed political suicide and we may never know all the reasons behind his decision or the timing of this disastrous announcement. Rumors had been widely circulating that there were serious death threats upon his father, Ron Paul. There has also long-been claims that many on Ron’s paid campaign staff have been undermining his campaign, all along. At this point, we do not know whether Rand came to this decision as a result of bad people around him giving him terrible advice or if he was the sacrificial lamb trying to take the heat off of his father.
It was somewhat interesting that Rand made a point to mention that his conversation with Romney occurred in Washington. Could this have been his way of confirming four witnesses’ claims of seeing Mitt Romney at the Bilderberg Group’s secretive meeting in nearby Virginia? He also knows that the social conservative base has been hard for his father to win over. Mentioning about how much the Romneys and Pauls have in common regarding family values was a bit odd considering the question but delivering it to a Sean Hannity audience was also quite interesting.
The real sequence of these events seems to have been misunderstood. Let us remember that Rand Paul met with Romney days before Ron Paul sent out an email claiming that he will not have enough delegates to win the nomination. I believe the email was actually an attempt to try to soften the blow of his son’s endorsement that Ron would have to be politically savvy enough to realize would be a huge mistake. As a statesman that has fought his entire career to promote the original principles of our constitution and the individual freedom and liberty of the American people, it would be expected that he probably gives his son the individual respect to make his own decisions as an adult. He probably tried to talk him out of it, but we may never know that part of the story. Regardless, the email may likely have been an attempt to lessen the blow of his son’s decision giving the pundits the reasoning that he did not officially endorse Romney until after his father’s email. Although the public announcement was made after the email, the decision to endorse Mitt Romney was probably made before it.